Parliament set for showdown with Commission over standalone FP10

The European Parliament has adopted a report calling for a standalone research Framework Programme in the next long-term EU budget. This lays the ground for a conflict with the European Commission, which is expected to place the programme within a broader EU Competitiveness Fund.

The non-binding report calls for a simplified, mission-driven independent research Framework Programme, FP10, with a significantly larger budget and reduced administrative burdens for participants compared to the current programme, Horizon Europe.

“We will have a vivid discussion with the Commission,” predicted German MEP Christian Ehler of the European People’s Party, who authored the report for the Industry, Research and Energy Committee. 

The report was approved during the Parliament’s Strasbourg plenary on March 11, passing with 523 votes in favour, 46 against and 49 abstentions.

The battle lines are now drawn for a struggle over how the EU will fund research and innovation after 2027. 

On one side is the Commission, and its president Ursula von der Leyen, which did not include a standalone FP10 in its recent competitiveness strategy. This has heightened concerns that the research and innovation programme will be squeezed into a broader Competitiveness Fund without a ring-fenced budget. 

On the other side are the Parliament, research commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva (who has stressed the importance of Framework Programmes) and the EU Council, which on Tuesday endorsed a "self-standing" FP10. The wider research community also supports the creation of an independent FP10.

Adding to tensions, a leaked note purportedly from a Commission official has been circulating in Brussels, suggesting that the odds are “80:20 against” an independent FP10, with von der Leyen ultimately holding the final decision. However, Science|Business has not been able to confirm the source of the note. 

‘A risky game’

Responding to questions from Science|Business, Ehler dismissed the idea that the Commission has sole authority over the Framework Programme’s fate, arguing that such an approach would be “neither politically wise nor well advised.”

He also accused the Commission’s Directorate-General for Budget of conducting a “secret operation” to integrate FP10 into the Competitiveness Fund without consulting Parliament or the Council.

“If they want to run in a conflict with both legislative bodies, I think they would endanger the whole Multiannual Financial Framework,” Ehler told Science|Business after Tuesday’s plenary vote. “It’s a risky game they’re playing.”

Commission officials have yet to provide a clear response to direct questions about FP10’s inclusion in the Competitiveness Fund, but there are signs such work is in hand. For example, András Inotai, a head of unit in the Commission’s research directorate, said this week that having a broad Competitiveness Fund would not necessarily jeopardise a standalone Framework Programme, which is secured by “certain treaty requirements.”

“There’s no inherent contradiction between having a strong Framework Programme with dedicated, bottom-up funding for fundamental research, and a Competitiveness Fund that would accompany companies from the early stage of their growth all the way to market deployment and growth stages in the EU market,” he told an event hosted by the European Consortium of Innovative Universities.

The Commission is expected to present its Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) proposal in July. Since the proposal for a research Framework Programme typically follows the MFF and is shaped by its decisions, the time for lobbying is limited. According to the leaked Commission note, the “opportunity window for direct political influence” over a standalone FP10 will close in “mid-March, end of March at the latest.”